The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions in Order 13 Rule 8 of C.P.C. for impounding a document do not apply if the document is not found to be insufficiently or not duly stamped, as determined by the provisions in Section 33 & 35 of the Indian Stamp Act and relevant case law.

JUDGMENT :

Biswanath Rath, J.

This matter involves challenge to the order dated 9.11.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Bhubaneswar in C.S. No.1688 of 2013. Petitioner while challenging the above order vide Annexure-7 seeks a direction to impound the documents i.e. the agreement to sale dated 17.3.2017 filed by the petitioner-plaintiff in the civil suit.

2. Short background involved in the case is that the opposite party-defendant in C.S. No.1688 of 2013 is the owner in possession of a plot of land in the District-Khordha, Tahasil-Bhubaneswar, Mouza-Kalarahanga, Khata No.725/515, Plot No.1672/2538/3210, Area – Ac.0.120 dec., Sthitiban, Kisam-Sarad-II, Rent Rs.0.75 p., bounded by-North Plot No.1671 (P), South-Road and Plot No.1673(P), East-Sub-Plot No.B and West Plot No.1676(P). The opposite party agreeing to sale the suit land to the plaintiff-petitioner on a consideration of Rs.23,00,000/- executed a deed of contract to sale the suit land on receipt of Rs.14,00,000/- as part consideration of money with further condition that the balance consideration of Rs.9,00,000/- would be payable by the petitioner-plaintiff at the time of execution of deed of sale in respect of the suit land within stipulated period of five months from the date of execution of the agreement for sale. As a consequence, agreement for sale of the suit land in favour of the petitioner was executed on 17.3.2013 and as per the conditions indicted hereinabove, the said agreement was to remain valid till 17.8.2013. It appears, the plaintiff-petitioner being ready with the balance consideration money and willing to get the sale deed executed and register the land in her favour had approached the defendant on first day of August, 2013 and finding the defendant’s avoiding to execute and register the sale deed on receipt of the balance consideration of money, the petitioner issued a pleader notice on 7.10.2013 to the defendant making therein a request to execute the sale deed and for the opposite party-defendant not paying any heed to the pleader notice, the petitioner was constrained to institute the suit bearing No.1688 of 2013 seeking relief for specific performance of contract within stipulated time to be fixed by the Court and failure of which, also sought for intervention of the Court to execute the sale deed and register the same following mandate of law and also for permanently restraining the opposite party-defendant from executing any deed of sale.

3. Opposite party-defendant appearing in the suit filing a written statement completely denied the execution of agreement for sale of suit land indicated hereinabove and pleaded that the plaintiff’s played fraud in creating such a document. While the matter stood thus, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 13 Rule 8 of C.P.C. for permitting her to pay the Stamp duty on the agreement to sale deed dated 17.3.2013 with penalty if any, and for impounding of the agreement dated 17.3.2013 thereby.

Considering the aforesaid application, the trial court rejected the application on 18.4.2015 on the ground that the agreement was not brought to the record by way of evidence and thereby, granted liberty to the petitioner to file such application at appropriate stage. It further reveals that the plaintiff examining P.W.s1, 2 & 3 exhibited the agreement to sale dated 17.3.2013 as Ext.1 marked with objection in course of examination of P.w.1. In the meantime, the defendant also examined two witnesses as D.W.1 & 2. Under the premises of bringing the documents to the fold of evidence, the petitioner-plaintiff once again filed an application under Order 13 Rule 8 of C.P.C. involving the same suit for the same purpose. The attempt of the plaintiff-petitioner was objected by the opposite party-defendant. The civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), BBSR after hearing both the parties, by order dated 9.11.2017 rejected the application at the instance of the plaintiff-petitioner on the premises that the case of the plaintiff-peti